Irrischeduler- a simple device for scheduling irrigations

T.B.S. Rajput1 and Neelam Patel2

Principal Scientist and Scientist, Water Technology Centre, IARI, New Delhi 110012, INDIA

Abstract
Farmers do not use any instruments for scheduling irrigations and depend only on their visual
judgment of crop and soil conditions. Evaluation of the farmers’ decisions revealed 5 to 30 per cent
variations from the appropriate soil moisture for scheduling irrigations. Understanding of the
farmers’ perceptions (through participatory rural appraisal, PRA in village Lakhan, Dist. Hapur,
Uttar Pradesh) indicated the complexity of available instruments as the major cause of their non-
adoption by farmers. A simple device, namely irrischeduler, was developed to indicate the time for
irrigation based on the soil moisture level. The developed device does not require the user to read
from a gauge, which was reported by farmers as cumbersome in their perception. Performance
evaluation of the developed device indicated that it could be used for most type of soils, excepting
sandy and highly clay soils.

1. Introduction
The dominant method of irrigation practiced in large parts of the country consists of diverting a
stream from the head of a field into furrow or borders and allowing it to flow down the grade by
gravity. Generally under these surface irrigation methods, the crop utilizes only less than one half of
the water released. A good part of the applied water is lost in conveyance, application, runoff and
evaporation. Accordingly the efficiency of surface irrigation methods is low. Higher irrigation
efficiencies can be realized in the farmers fields if, as a first step, amount of water applied and the
time of application of available water are fixed appropriately.

Soil in the plant root zone acts as a reservoir for water. Soil texture is the primary factor
influencing the amount of water that the soil reservoir can store. Available water is defined as
amount of water that plants are able to withdraw from the soil for their use. Fine textured soils,
such as clays, silt loams, or loams are able to hold much more available water than sandy, coarse-
textured soils. Soil water holding capacity is an important factor to consider in determining the
appropriate timing and volume of irrigation water. Tensiometer is a device that indicates the level of
soil moisture.

In exclusively canal irrigated areas there is hardly any scope for scheduling irrigation differently
from the schedule of the operation of the canal itself. But even in situations where the water supply
is in control of the farmers themselves, they depend only on their visual judgment of crop and soil
condition for scheduling irrigations and do not use any instrument for the purpose.

Participatory Rural Appraisal was conducted in village Lakhan, Dist Hapur, Uttar Pradesh to
investigate the farmers’ perceptions for non-adoption of available tools like resistance block and
tensiometers for monitoring soil moisture for scheduling of irrigations. Based on their responses
existing tensiometer was modified and an irrischeduler was developed. The article presents the
details of the developed device, namely irrischeduler, its calibration using a standard tensiometer
and discusses its appropriateness in scheduling irrigations under different type of soils.

485
2. Materials And Methods
2.1 Participatory Rural Appraisal
A village namely Lakhan, District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh was selected to study the irrigation
practices followed by the farmers. The village has some cultivated area exclusively under canal
command, some cultivated area exclusively under tube well command and some having both, canal
as well as tube well irrigation facilities. A detailed participatory rural appraisal (PRA) study
conducted to understand farmers perceptions about irrigation scheduling revealed that none of the
farmers adopted any tools for scheduling irrigations and depend solely on their visual judgement of
crop and soil condition (Rajput and Patel1). On discussion with the concerned farmers and on
demonstration of the use of tensiometers to them it was found that the farmers considered the
reading of vacuum gauge cumbersome and wished to have a simpler device.

2.2 Evaluation of Farmers’ Decisions of Irrigation Scheduling

Fifteen farmers having land holdings ranging from 0.15 ha to 5.6 ha were selected for observing
their irrigation practices. Soil moisture contents at which the selected farmers actually applied the
irrigations in wheat crop (2001-2002) were recorded and were compared with their respective
appropriate soil moisture levels for studying the accuracy / inaccuracy in their judgment for
scheduling irrigations without the use of any appropriate instruments.

Difference between the Field capacity and the wilting point of a soil is considered as the available
irrigation water. The irrigation is scheduled on depletion of a fixed percentage (normally 50 per
cent) of the available soil moisture. Soil moisture contents at field capacity and wilting point of the
soils of the study area were determined. The soil moisture at the time of irrigation by different
farmers were recorded and compared with their respective appropriate soil moistures for irrigation.

2.3 Scheduling Irrigations Using Tensiometers

Tensiometers are one of many tools available for irrigation management. With practice,
tensiometers can provide the information required to make proper irrigation decisions (Goldhamer
and Synder2). A tensiometer consists of a porous cup, connected through a rigid body tube to a
vacuum gauge, with all components filled with water. The porous cup is normally constructed of
ceramic because of its structural strength as well as permeability to water flow (Michael3).

Tensiometers are placed in the field with the ceramic cup firmly in contact with the soil in the plant
root zone. The ceramic cup is porous so that water can move through it to equilibrate with the soil
water. A partial vacuum is created as water moves from the sealed tensiometer tube. As the soil
dries, water potential decreases (tension increases) and the tensiometer vacuum gauge reading
increases. Conversely, an increase in soil water content (from irrigation or rainfall) decreases
tension and lowers the vacuum gauge reading. In this way, a tensiometer continuously records
fluctuations in soil water potential under field conditions (Pogue and Pooley4).

The range of operation of a tensiometer is generally limited between 10 and 85 cb. Waterlogged
conditions are indicated when tensimeter reads below 10 cb and leaf defoliation begins when
reading exceeds 85 cb (Peacock et.al5) . Above 85 cb the column of water in the plexiglass tube
will form water vapor bubbles (cavitate), and the instrument will cease to function (Smajstrla and
Harrison6).

A tensiometer is placed in the portion of the root zone that represent average depletion level of the
entire root zone depth. The general depletion levels are 40, 30, 20 and 10 per cent of the water used
by the crop from different quarters of the root zone (Michael et.al7). Consequently, a tensiometer
needs to be placed between the second and third quarter of the root zone or at 63 percent of the

486
depth of the roots in order for it to be placed in the depth of the root zone representing the average
extraction level. For example if the root zone is 50 cm the tensiometer should be placed at 31.5 cm
(Levin et.al8).

2.4 Development of an Irrischeduler

A regular tensiometer was modified to develop it in to an irrischeduler. In the irrischeduler a
transparent tube (rigid Plexiglass) and a coloured float is used to indicate the level of water in it.
The porous cup (ceramic) is used at one end of the tube and the tube is filled with water and is
sealed from the other end with the help of a watertight cork. The ceramic cup is installed in the soil
at an appropriate depth as discussed in case of tensiometers above. The irrischeduler provides an
opportunity to monitor soil moisture fluctuations through change in water level in its tube. It may
also enable marking one value on the tube indicating maximum permissible drop of water level to
indicate the time for scheduling next irrigation. Characteristic curve of irrischeduler was
developed and it was calibrated with the help of a slandered tensiometer. Figure 1 presents a
tensiometer and an irrischeduler installed side by in a tomato field.

3. Results and Discussion

Fifteen farmers having land holdings from 0.15 ha to 5.6 ha were selected for studying the
variations in farmers’ judgment from their respective appropriate soil moistures for scheduling
irrigations. Soil moisture contents at which the selected farmers actually applied their irrigations for
wheat crop (2001-2002) were recorded and are presented in Table 1. Soils of the selected farmers
fields were analyzed to determine their textures (Table 2). Appropriate soil moisture levels in
respect of different farmers fields were determined using a hydraulic properties calculator (Saxton9)
for scheduling irrigation and the same are presented in Table 2.

Table 1 indicates that the farmers having exclusively canal irrigation facility irrigated four times
when the canal was in operation and they could have not scheduled their irrigations otherwise. The
farmers having tube well irrigation facility did tend to irrigate more frequently than required and
allowed much less soil moisture depletion than what was appropriate. Farmers having tubewell
irrigation facility irrigated wheat fields 6 to 7 times (Table 3). It may also be noted from Table 3
that the farmers never allowed the soil moisture to deplete upto allowable level and irrigated at soil
moistures 5 % to 30 % above the appropriate soil moisture level (Table 3).

Participatory rural appraisal was conducted in village Lakhan involving all the selected 15 farmers.
Scoring and Ranking techniques of PRA indicated that farmers schedule irrigatios on the basis of
crop condition (Rank I) followed only by soil condition (Rank II). No farmer used any instrument
or device for the purpose. Demonstration of the use of a regular tensiometer received the comments
from the farmersthat it was cumbersome as it required reading from a gauge. However, farmers
wished to have a simpler device but without a gauge for trial in their fields themselves.

An irrischeduler was developed having a transparent plexiglass tube and a coloured plastic ball in it
to indicate water level in it. The irrischeduler was installed in a tomato field. A regular tensiometer
was also installed nearby (Figure 1). With each passing day water level in irrischeduler started
falling tensiometer started showing increasing readings. The relationship between the fall of water
level inside the irischeduler tube and the reading of the vacuum gauge of the tensiometer with
decreasing soil moisture were developed (Figure 2).

Characteristic curve was developed for the irrischeduler relating the fall of water level inside the
irrischeduler tube and the soil moisture level. Based on the estimated appropriate soil moisture for
scheduling irrigation for a field (Table 2), its corresponding level of water level in irrischeduler was
determined and marked on its body. The farmer then had to schedule next irrigation of his field

487
when the water level in the irrischeduler fallsbelow that mark. On the day of irrigation, irrischeduler
tube should be filled with water completely and sealed with its cork.

The values of field capacity and wilting point are a function of soil texture. The range of available
soil moisture varies with soil type. Also different levels are allowed before scheduling next
irrigation based mainly on the crop type. Figure 3 indicates that for all soils excepting sandy soil
and highly clay soils, the range of soil moisture (under allowable soil moisture depletions of 50%,
40%, 30% and 20 % of total available soil moisture) fall within the operational range of the
irrischeduler.

4. Conclusion
Irrischeduler is a much simpler device in comparison to a tensiometer but possesses all its positive
attributes, therefore it can be used to schedule irrigations effectively. Farmers having their own tube
wells or any other source of water may make a good use of irrischeduler and cut down on number
and amount of irrigations and save the energy, time and money. The developed irrischeduler can be
used to schedule irrigations in most soils except sandy soil and highly clay soils.

5. Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of National Agricultural Technology
Project through its sub project on “improving skills and instrumentation for water application in
fields for enhanced water use efficiency” for the present study.

6.References
1. Rajput TBS and Neelam Patel.. ‘Determination of status of use of irrigation equipments on
farmers’ field through participatory rural appraisal techniques’. Proc 2nd Int Agron Cong, (2):
1470-1471. 2002.
2. Goldhamer, D.A. and Synder, R.L. ‘Irrigation scheduling, A guide for efficient on-farm water
management’ ,DANR Publication 21 454, University of California, Oakland, CA, 1989, 67p.
3. Michael AM . Irrigation- theory and practice, Vikas Publishing House, 1978, 801p.
4. Pogue WR and Pooley S.G. ‘Tensiometer measurement of soil water’, Proc 3rd Int Drip/
Trickle Irrig Congr, Fresno, California ASAE 2:761-766. 1985
5. Peacock B, Williamsd L and Christensen P. ‘ Water management and irrigation scheduling’,
coop exten, University of California, Pub.- IG9-98. 1998.
6. Smajstrla AG and Harrison DS..’Tensiometers for soil moisture measurement and irrigation
scheduling’, Cooperative extension service, Institute of food and agricultural sciences, Univ of
Florida., C. No. 487, 1998.6.
7. Michael AM, Mohan S and Swaminathan KR. ‘Design and evaluation of irrigation methods’,
IARI Monograph No. 1, 1972, 208p.
8. Levin I., Sarig S and Meron M.. ‘Tensiometer location in controlle automated drip irrigation
of cotton’. Proc 3rd Int Drip / Trckle Irrig Congr, Fresno, California ASAE 2:782- 785, 1985
9. Saxton KE . ‘Estimating generalized soil water characteristics from Texture’, Soil Sci Soc
Amer J 50 (4): 1031-1036. 1986.

488
Table 1 Soil moisture levels at different irrigations of wheat 2001-2002
(Village Lakhan, District Hapur)
SN Name of farmer Source Soil moisture contents observed at the
of water time of different irrigations (%)
1 Gyan Singh C 10 12 17 10 - - -
2 Jagpal T 20 21 22 20 19 22 -
3 Harchanda C 15 17 20 13 - - -
4 Ramveer Singh T 21 20 22 21 20 21 -
5 Dinesh Singh T 21 21 22 23 20 20 -
6 Chhidda Singh T 22 23 21 20 20 21 -
7 Jagpal Singh C 12 12 16 11 - - -
8 Ompal Singh T 21 23 20 22 21 23 -
9 Chandar C 15 14 19 14 - - -
10 Bhule Singh C+T 21 20 20 23 21 20 22
11 Veer Singh C+T 22 24 22 23 25 22 24
12 Bhagvan Singh T 21 23 21 23 22 - -
13 Indraraj C 15 15 18 14 - - -
14 Khoobi C 16 17 18 14 - - -
15 Ranbhool Singh C 11 13 17 10 - - -
C = Canal , T = Tubewell,

Table 2 Appropriate soil moisture levels for irrigation for wheat 2001-2002
(Village Lakhan, District Hapur)
SN Name of farmer Size of Soil texture Field Wilting Appropriate
holding Sand Silt Clay Capacity Point. Moisture for
(ha) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) irrigation (%)
1 Gyan Singh 5.6 56.5 35.28 8.22 21 9 15
2 Jagpal 5.6 44.5 44.00 11.5 24 10 17
3 Harchanda 5.6 44.5 39.28 16.22 25 11 18
4 Ramveer Singh 3.6 40.5 45.28 14.22 25 11 18
5 Dinesh Singh 3.2 37.78 45.72 16.5 26 11 19
6 Chhidda Singh 3.0 31.78 48.00 20.22 28 12 20
7 Jagpal Singh 2.4 45.78 41.72 12.5 23 9 16
8 Ompal Singh 2.0 36.5 44.28 19.22 27 12 19
9 Chandar 1.2 35.78 48.00 16.22 26 11 19
10 Bhule Singh 1.2 44.5 44.00 11.5 24 10 17
11 Veer Singh 1.1 31.78 50.00 18.22 28 12 20
12 Bhagvan Singh 1.0 36.5 44.28 19.22 27 12 19
13 Indraraj 1.0 33.78 50.00 16.22 27 11 19
14 Khoobi 0.7 32.5 45.28 22.22 28 13 20
15 Ranbhool Singh 0.15 56.5 35.28 8.22 21 9 15

489
Table 3. Inaccuracy in farmers decisions for scheduling irrigations

SN Name of farmer Range of soil Soil moisture Error in

moisture at the time appropriate for scheduling
of irrigations (%) irrigation (%) irrigations (%)
1 Gyan Singh 10 – 17 15 -33 to +13
2 Jagpal 19 – 22 17 +11 to +29
3 Harchanda 13 – 20 18 -27 to +11
4 Ramveer Singh 20 – 22 18 +11 to +22
5 Dinesh Singh 20 - 23 19 + 5 to +21
6 Chhidda Singh 19 - 23 20 0 to +15
7 Jagpal Singh 11- 16 16 -31 to 0
8 Ompal Singh 20 - 23 19 + 5 to +21
9 Chandar 14 - 19 19 -26 to 0
10 Bhule Singh 19 - 22 17 +17 to +35
11 Veer Singh 21 - 24 20 +10 to +25
12 Bhagvan Singh 21 - 23 19 +10 to +21
13 Indraraj 14 - 18 19 -26 to - 5
14 Khoobi 14 - 20 20 -30 to +10
15 Ranbhool Singh 10 - 17 15 -33 to +13

Irrischeduler

Tensiometer

Figure 1. Irrischeduler installed next to a tensiometer in a tomato field for calibration

490
 80 80
Drop in water level in Irrscheduler
70 70

Drop in water level in Irrscheduler (cm)

Tensiometer Reading (centibar)

60 60
Tensiometer Reading (cb)

50 50

40 40

30 30
-0.6505
y = 109.63x
20 R2 = 0.9842 20

10 y = 49.903x-0.6579 10
2
R = 0.9402
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Soil Moisture Content (%)

Figure 2 Characteristic curves of a tensiometer and an irrischeduler (Loamy sand soil)

40

50% Allowable Moisture Depletion

40% Allowable Moisture Depletion
Percentage Moisture Content

30 30% Allowable Moisture Depletion

20% Allowable Moisture Depletion

20

Range of
operation
of irrischeduler
10

0
Sand sandy Loamy Loam Silty Clay
Loam Sand Loam

Figure 3 Range of operation of irrischeduler and allowable moisture in different soils

491